Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[dafydd]

Ok, even 'truthers' often have a problem with dogma I agree (I myself am free from dogma of course. Of course! ). Often they are somewhat of being the same sheeple, just with a different shepherd.

There is no such thing as a sheeple,

 

[Jackanory]

Unless you find valid information that shows demo charges that can suck inward, your stupid theory has no legs...

shhhhhhh......those sucking 'flubber' charges are top secret. Only a hand full of selected ninjas are aware of their existance and use. To place them in the exact location of the aircraft strike was a wonder of the modern world. 3 of those ninja operatives also went on to pick the winning lotto numbers on 3 consecutive weeks. Ya couldnt make it up if ya tried. Honest guvner. lol.

 

[Java Man]

What is your point?

Are you trying to say that there was something unusual about the fires? that they should not have burned that long? that the length of time that they burned indicate (OMG!) thermite?

Other than the kamikaze hijackers, there is nothing unexpected in any of this.

I'm not trying to say any of those rehearsed lines. Please don't anticipate yourself. Just stick to answering the questions I've put forward to you and others. Why did everyone suddenly go quiet?

Here goes again? What is this pile people are talking about? I understand the fire burned under the pile. It was mentioned to be underground. Was it in a basement or something? How far underground was it?

Those are simple questions I believe you folks should have answers to since you're bringing forth such statements.

 

[Disbelief]

My point in posting was not to prove comparisons between 1993 and 2001, although comparisons would be obvious for people who had survived both, but in pointing out that there were indeed many, many reports of explosions. End of story. You're trying to move the goalposts again here.

So, when you said this (bolding mine):

So, so far we have two "debunker" claims here that remain unsupported:

1) that "there were no eyewitnesses reports of noises consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition."

and

2) that "nobody heard anything like 1993 in 2001."

You were incorrect? That looks exactly like a comparison, so who is moving goalposts.

So, do you plan on moving away from the claim that it is unsupported since you have not provided any refutation?

 

[leftysergeant]

What is this pile people are talking about? I understand the fire burned under the pile. It was mentioned to be underground. Was it in a basement or something? How far underground was it?

The pile was the entire debris field around the site. Stuff was everywhere. Some of it was above ground, some below ground level. Someof it was shoved down into basements.

It was a jumble of all manner of combustible items.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What is this pile people are talking about?

The immense pile of rubble, shown by photographic evidence to be many storeys high, resulting from the collapses, and comprising the material that had previously made up the various buildings.

I understand the fire burned under the pile. It was mentioned to be underground. Was it in a basement or something? How far underground was it?

There were combustibles throughout the pile, which appear to have burned for considerable periods of time after the collapses. Their precise distribution within the pile is unknown, and of little consequence. It's misleading to think of the fires as under the pile.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

The pile was the entire debris field around the site. Stuff was everywhere. Some of it was above ground, some below ground level. Someof it was shoved down into basements.

It was a jumble of all manner of combustible items.

The existence of "a pile" leads me to believe there was a higher concentration of material in the so called "pile" than the other 16 acres. The existence of material underground in the "basement" leads me to believe it fell from the top into said "basement". Since the basement is underneath the building and thus in its footprint your observations now indicate that the building did indeed fall into its footprint thus creating the "pile" you refer to.

Now the fact that the f word is related to controlled demolitions and thus politically incorrect is quite possibly the reason why you want to stay away from using it. But do realize that sooner or later you'll come around to express position that will imply an "on the footprint" collapse like it or not.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The existence of "a pile" leads me to believe there was a higher concentration of material in the so called "pile" than the other 16 acres. The existence of material underground in the "basement" leads me to believe it fell from the top into said "basement". Since the basement is underneath the building and thus in its footprint your observations now indicate that the building did indeed fall into its footprint thus creating the "pile" you refer to.

Jesuitical reasoning at its finest. You are claiming that, because some of the material of the buildings fell into their footprint, therefore all of the material fell into the footprint. This is trivially and obviously false.

Now the fact that the f word is related to controlled demolitions and thus politically incorrect is quite possibly the reason why you want to stay away from using it. But do realize that sooner or later you'll come around to express position that will imply an "on the footprint" collapse like it or not.

I thought you said you weren't trying to say any of these rehearsed lines. It's a classic piece of truther litany that the buildings fell into their own footprints, that controlled demolition results in a building falling into its own footprint, and that these two observations prove that the collapses were controlled demolitions. It's also a classic piece of truther dogma that no notice should be taken of the fact that all of these three statements are false. And here you are, regurgitating the party line like a well-trained acolyte. David Ray Griffin would be proud.

Dave

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The existence of "a pile" leads me to believe there was a higher concentration of material in the so called "pile" than the other 16 acres. The existence of material underground in the "basement" leads me to believe it fell from the top into said "basement". Since the basement is underneath the building and thus in its footprint your observations now indicate that the building did indeed fall into its footprint thus creating the "pile" you refer to.

Now the fact that the f word is related to controlled demolitions and thus politically incorrect is quite possibly the reason why you want to stay away from using it. But do realize that sooner or later you'll come around to express position that will imply an "on the footprint" collapse like it or not.

That's weird, over 16 acres of debris when all 3 Towers collapsed & not a single 1 of them managed to "collapse inside their own footprint". Truthers can't explain what the photographs capture, because they're blind!

 

[Java Man]

It's misleading to think of the fires as under the pile.

Dave

Another member posted that the fire was "underground" that sounds pretty under the pile to me. Unless the pile was more under than underground. Maybe that's what they mean to say with "everything went to hell that day"?


BTW, what amount of time do you refer to by "considerable periods of time after the collapses"? Hours, days or weeks?

 

[Sabretooth]

Here goes again? What is this pile people are talking about? I understand the fire burned under the pile. It was mentioned to be underground. Was it in a basement or something? How far underground was it?

Are you kidding? Everyone, even the stupid truthers, agree that smoldering fires burned underneath the rubble of WTC for several months. Are you really holding your breath for someone here to answer that question when that info is readily available on the innernetZ?

let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fires+at+wtc

 

[T.A.M.]

The existence of "a pile" leads me to believe there was a higher concentration of material in the so called "pile" than the other 16 acres. The existence of material underground in the "basement" leads me to believe it fell from the top into said "basement". Since the basement is underneath the building and thus in its footprint your observations now indicate that the building did indeed fall into its footprint thus creating the "pile" you refer to.

Now the fact that the f word is related to controlled demolitions and thus politically incorrect is quite possibly the reason why you want to stay away from using it. But do realize that sooner or later you'll come around to express position that will imply an "on the footprint" collapse like it or not.

For the 8 millionth time....

The pile, aka the debris field, fell into and well beyond the "footprint" of the towers. It was alSo 3 storeys (about 30 feet) high. Under e debris, at various depths, were fires...were they all "underground", who knows....i do not.

Next point?

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Jesuitical reasoning at its finest. You are claiming that, because some of the material of the buildings fell into their footprint, therefore all of the material fell into the footprint. This is trivially and obviously false.

False? Then what gave the pieces 3 acres away enough lateral impulse to get there? My theory is that the building collapsed vertically downward on its footprint. I'm not scared to say the f word. Because although related to controlled demolitions it is also seen in other collapses. For example earthquaked induced collapses. I also don't believe that the collapse tower would have kept it shape as one nice block on top of its footprint. Clearly the debris began to flow out as the collapse. There was a lot of collisions and rebounds as the stuff flew outward by ricochet as it fell and "bounced" off the pile.

To say that some material flew three acres out in a parabolic fall path is to imply the presence of huge impulses. Surely some lighter material did spread out and of course there is the cloud. But to claim that heavy beams could be spread out evenly around 16 acres is to accept explosives.

I thought you said you weren't trying to say any of these rehearsed lines. It's a classic piece of truther litany that the buildings fell into their own footprints, that controlled demolition results in a building falling into its own footprint, and that these two observations prove that the collapses were controlled demolitions. It's also a classic piece of truther dogma that no notice should be taken of the fact that all of these three statements are false. And here you are, regurgitating the party line like a well-trained acolyte. David Ray Griffin would be proud.

Dave

Once again the error in your statement is to believe that one implies the other. That footprint collapse means controlled demolition. Footprint collapses are a product of controlled demolition, but controlled demolitions gone bad can end up in nothing like a footprint collapse. So I would say that footprint collapses are what controlled demolitions strive to achieve, but in no way guarantee.

 

[Java Man]

For the 8 millionth time....

The pile, aka the debris field, fell into and well beyond the "footprint" of the towers. It was alSo 3 storeys (about 30 feet) high. Under e debris, at various depths, were fires...were they all "underground", who knows....i do not.

Next point?

TAM

Good, now that we got that settled. And thank you for taking the time to set it down in writing. Now we can move on.

Now getting back to the black boxes. How do you guys think the black boxes made it into the underground fires when they were on the topmost floors? Did they race and beat all other debris on the way down?

 

[excaza]

So 9/11 was CD, please begin posting your proof.

What explosives were used, how much explosive material was required, where is the proof of explosives (residue, det cord, unexploded material, etc), where were they planted, how long did it take to prep the buildings, who prepped them, how were they prepped without anybody noticing, why there was the need to CD them in the first place, etc.

The only thing I've seen from the truther camp about this is incredulity. "The towers couldn't have collapsed like that because of airplanes!!!"

I'm more than willing to accept CD, but there has been no evidence to support it. It's been 9 years, how much longer do we have to wait?

 

[T.A.M.]

Good, now that we got that settled. And thank you for taking the time to set it down in writing. Now we can move on.

Now getting back to the black boxes. How do you guys think the black boxes made it into the underground fires when they were on the topmost floors? Did they race and beat all other debris on the way down?

Well, actually, they were not on top. In one case there were over 10 floors above them, and in the other case over 30 floors above.

Please tell me you are not about to argue that there wasnt enough debris above them, or that they were too high ithe pile to have been effected bY fires in tHe pile. Or are you gonna argue that they were high enough in the pile that they shouldhave been found. Where are you going with this socrates.

TAM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So 9/11 was CD, please begin posting your proof.

What explosives were used, how much explosive material was required, where is the proof of explosives (residue, det cord, unexploded material, etc), where were they planted, how long did it take to prep the buildings, who prepped them, how were they prepped without anybody noticing, why there was the need to CD them in the first place, etc.

The only thing I've seen from the truther camp about this is incredulity. "The towers couldn't have collapsed like that because of airplanes!!!"

I'm more than willing to accept CD, but there has been no evidence to support it. It's been 9 years, how much longer do we have to wait?

As long as those nuts prove that the "U.S. Government killed JFK", then they will have a case that the "U.S. Government planned 9/11". We'll be waiting til the end of time for evidence from both Theories!

 

[Java Man]

Please tell me you are not about to argue that there wasnt enough debris above them, or that they were too high ithe pile to have been effected bY fires in tHe pile. Or are you gonna argue that they were high enough in the pile that they shouldhave been found. Where are you going with this socrates.

TAM

That's exactly what I'm going to argue. 10 floors is less than 10% of the mass given the building was much stronger in the bottom. It is you who would have a hard time arguing against this.

 

[T.A.M.]

You haveno idea what you are talking about. Please show me scientific proof that 10-30 floors of steel and concrete and debris is not sufficient to crush the the black boxes beyond recognition.

This will surely result in more dodging.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

You haveno idea what you are talking about. Please show me scientific proof that 10-30 floors of steel and concrete and debris is not sufficient to crush the the black boxes beyond recognition.

This will surely result in more dodging.

TAM

I though we were discussing the distribution of the debris and the relative location of the black box within them. Please explain to me how 10 floors can come crushing down on the black box, entrap it in a fire and yet leave enough debris for a 16 acre field. Were the antennas that large and capable of creating that much debris?